Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses read-only default, no spending, the refresh parameter's async and safe nature (never charges, never touches completed/refunded orders), and suggests polling after 5-10s. It also mentions the delivered content (account credentials). This is exceptional transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is thorough but well-structured with headings (PREREQUISITE, WHEN TO USE, PREFER INSTEAD) and a Vietnamese translation. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes value. It is longer than typical but justified by the tool's optional refresh behavior and alternatives.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, prerequisites, usage scenarios, alternatives, safety guarantees, and polling guidance. An agent can invoke this correctly without any external documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that api_key is required, order_code comes from buy_product or list_orders, and refresh is only for stuck orders and is optional. This adds context that the schema alone does not provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it checks the status and delivered content of a single order by order_code, distinguishing it from list_orders (all orders) and other sibling tools. The verb 'Check' and resource are specific, and the scope 'ONE of your orders' prevents ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'PREFER INSTEAD' sections provide direct guidance: when to use the tool, when to set refresh=true, and when to use alternatives like list_orders, get_mail_code, and submit_complaint. This fully routes an agent to the correct tool for the situation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.